By fall 2017 Washington state public schools will begin teaching gender expression to kindergarteners under newly-approved health education learning standards that designate sexual health a “core idea” of public K-12 education.

While some aspects of sexual health aren’t taught K-12 (HIV prevention begins in fourth grade), one component of sexual health titled “Self-Identity” begins in kindergarten, where students will be expected to “Understand there are many ways to express gender.”

The state’s health education glossary defines gender as “A social construct based on emotional, behavioral, and cultural characteristics attached to a person’s assigned biological sex.” Gender expression, meanwhile, is defined as “The way someone outwardly expresses their gender.”

These definitions differ from the state’s definition of “biological sex”: “Based on chromosomes, hormones, and internal and external anatomy.”

Nathan Olson, a communications manager for the statewide Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI), told The Daily Caller that the glossary “was developed to support classroom instruction.” The new standards were finalized in March but OSPI has yet to issue a press release informing the public of the changes.

As part of an aspect of sexual health titled “Healthy Relationships,” kindergarteners will learn to distinguish between “safe and unwanted touch.” They will also learn to “Recognize people have the right to refuse giving or receiving unwanted touch.” OSPI did not answer a question from TheDC about whether this lesson plan amounts to teaching consent to kindergarteners.

By third grade, students will be expected to “Explain that gender roles can vary considerably” and “Understand [the] importance of treating others with respect regarding gender identity,” as part of the “Self-Identity” component of sexual health.

Gender identity is defined by the state as “Someone’s inner sense of their gender.”

“The standards don’t define ‘gender spectrum.’ But self-identity is a key component,” Olson said when TheDC asked whether learning that gender is a “spectrum” is considered part of learning about “gender identity.” Last month, Fox News’ Todd Starnes described a Virginia county’s lesson plans on gender spectrum as “the idea that there’s no such thing as 100 percent boys or 100 percent girls.”

By fourth grade, Washington students will learn to “Identify how friends and family can influence ideas regarding gender roles, identity, and expression” and define sexual orientation. The state defines “gender roles” as “Social expectations about how people should act, think, or feel based on their assigned biological sex.”

In fifth grade, students will learn to “Describe how media, society, and culture can influence ideas regarding gender roles, identity, and expression.” Under the guidance of school employees, fifth graders will also “Identify trusted adults to ask questions about gender identity and sexual orientation.” It’s not clear if parents are automatically considered “trusted adults.”

By the end of elementary school (typically around age 11 or 12), students will be expected to “Understand the range of gender roles, identity, and expression across cultures.”

In seventh grade, students will learn to “Distinguish between biological sex, gender identity, gender expression, and sexual orientation.” By eighth grade, students will be expected to “Recognize external influences that shape attitudes about gender identity, gender expression, and sexual orientation.”

This education continues through high school where students will “Evaluate how culture, media, society, and other people influence our perceptions of gender roles, sexuality, relationships, and sexual orientation.”

OSPI denied that the state intends to force a set of beliefs upon its students.

Over the past few weeks I’ve been given multiple opportunities to help out our Republican candidates and conservative causes within the Commonwealth. All of these opportunities were sponsored by the tireless activists we have in this state, who are willing to travel upwards of an hour to pitch in for our candidates.

What is unfortunate is that the sponsors of these opportunities are routinely locked out or disenfranchised by the MassGOP as a whole. Renew MA Coalition has been sponsoring a different candidate opportunity every week, and you aren’t a real Republican activist if you haven’t gotten an email from Desiree at some point in your life. Certainly, every email ever sent criticizes this or that failure by the Dems, but there’s not that much in there about supporting the candidates we do have. There’s also not a portal for all of our candidates, if for nothing more than partisan legislative offices, on the MassGOP’s website. I grant it that Republicans are not challenging a lot of offices this year – this isn’t like the State Committee where all the serious business gets done, after all – but we should still make it as easy as possible to access our candidates.

I imagine many voters don’t even know if there’s a Republican candidate for any state legislative office in their district. The state party should at least look like it is aware. It’s not as if the powers that be don’t know the districts either, as their endorsed State Committee candidates had State Senate districts defined down to the precinct level. In other words it’s not a lack of knowledge, it’s a lack of enthusiasm for our actual brand. For all the crowing about the Governor’s approval rating, the GOP doesn’t seem too confident in it’s own brand.

Let me share a key observation I’ve made, though: Conservatives aren’t afraid of the Republican brand. The Massachusetts Republican Assembly is happy to encourage people to be Republicans and make voters aware of our candidates. The Massachusetts Federation of Republican Women had been promoting Republicans for eight decades before the GOP decided, under a female chair no less, to place their organization a position that required state chapters to violate their national charter. I somehow doubt “Women for Baker” is going to have the same enthusiasm in 2018 as it did in 2014 now that so many members of that organization have had the screws put to them by the Baker endorsed State Committee slate.

Rather, the GOP seems to take its cues from persons who hold themselves out as members of the Party – or leftists who claim to have its best interests – who have openly stated they’ll vote for Hillary over the Republican nominee. Who continually suggest that the key to a strong Republican brand is to mirror the Democrat brand – in tactics, and in policy, but never – and oddly, it seems – in organizational structure. The Democrats are a committed annual party and are structured to that effect. We are not, and it shows.

We ought to be taking our cues from the organizations that work tirelessly for our candidates and are not afraid of our Republican brand. We should cease taking cues from the quarterly carpool that travels from Beacon Hill to the State Committee meetings. We are more than “Not Democrats,” we are Affirmative Republicans.

We stand for women’s safety, and oppose legislation that makes it a hate crime for them to act in their own defense in enclosed spaces.

We proudly proclaim that families are the building blocks of a free society, a society of limited government that acts with purpose only on the few roles it is suited to govern.

We support that natural right of every person to defend themselves from harm, including by exercising their 2nd Amendment Right enshrined in – not granted by – the Constitution.

We believe legal immigrants, the people who contribute greatly to our society and followed our laws, should not be treated worse by our government than people who jumped the line.

We believe education is best when it is run by local governments and not merely a way to send infinite sums of money to Pearson textbooks and other collaborators with The Gates Foundation.

And we back up these beliefs with action on the streets and in our neighborhoods.

Affirmative Republicans have a meaning, a drive, and a purpose. We’re not going away, and we’re not interested in a party that is afraid to call itself Republican. We are thus far an untapped resource by the party as a whole, but that can change in a mere political cycle or two. We aim to make that so.

A series of dueling gun control measures in the Senate were defeated Monday evening in the first proposed legislation in the wake of the Orlando terror attack.

The four amendments all failed on procedural votes.

The first vote was on the amendment by Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, to enhance funding for an existing gun background check system which needed 60 votes to pass. The final vote tally was 53 to 47.

The second vote was on a measure by Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., to expand gun background checks and close the so-called gun show loophole where firearm purchases are not tracked. The final vote tally was 44 to 56.

Republican Sen. John Cornyn of Texas pushed a measure that would allow the government to delay a gun sale to a suspected terrorrist for 72 hours, but require prosecutors to go to court to show probable cause to block the sale permanently. The National Rifle Associated backed the legislation, but it failed in a final vote of 53 to 47.

The fourth and final vote involved a measure by Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., to keep people on a government terrorism watch list or other suspected terrorists from buying guns. The Justice Department endorsed her legislation, but it also failed with a final vote count of 47 to 53.

The votes came after Murphy filibustered for almost 15 hours last week seeking action in response to the killing of 49 people in the gay nightclub Pulse by Omar Mateen, a Florida man who pledged his loyalty to ISIS in the midst of the rampage.

Since lawmakers were unable to come together on a piece of compromise legislation, the individual bills faced long odds. Democrats helped block two Republican amendments, arguing that they fall short in controlling the sales of firearms. In turn, Republicans were able to block two Democratic amendments, contending they threaten the constitutional rights of gun owners.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said the Orlando attack shows the best way to prevent attacks by extremists is to defeat such groups overseas.

“Look, no one wants terrorists to be able to buy guns or explosives,” McConnell said. He suggested that Democrats were using the day’s votes “as an opportunity to push a partisan agenda or craft the next 30-second campaign ad,” while Republicans wanted “real solutions.”

Cornyn said after the votes that he thinks there may be other votes on terrorism or guns later this week.

Murphy said Sunday on ABC’s “The Week” that the passage of the measures was unlikely and focused on the response to the filibuster.

“It wasn’t just that 40 senators came to the floor and supported my effort to get these votes but there were millions of people all across the country who rose up and who joined our effort,” he said.

Attorney General Loretta Lynch told “Fox News Sunday” that she also supported Cornyn’s proposal. Lynch said such an amendment would give the federal government the ability to stop a sale to somebody on the terror watch list.

However, she argued the federal government needs flexibility and the authority to protect the classified information used in denying a sale, if potential buyers exercise the constitutional rights to file an appeal.

“The American people deserve for us to take the greatest amount of time,” Lynch said.

The Pulse Orlando nightclub shooter was added to a government watch list of individuals known or suspected of being involved in terrorist activities in 2013, when he was investigated for inflammatory statements to co-workers. But he was pulled from that database when that investigation was closed 10 months later.

Both the Feinstein and Cornyn amendments would have tried to ensure that individuals like Mateen who had been a subject of a terrorism investigation within the last five years are flagged. Grassley’s would have required that law enforcement be notified if a person had been investigated in the last five years and attempted to purchase a gun.

Last week, presumptive GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump tweeted that he would meet with the NRA about “not allowing people on the terrorist watch list, or the no fly list, to buy guns.” Exactly what he would support was unclear.

Separately, moderate Republican Sen. Susan Collins of Maine is working with other Republicans, as well as talking to Democrats, on a bill that would prevent people on the no-fly list — a smaller universe than targeted by Democrats — from getting guns. But her bill had not been blessed by GOP leaders and it was unclear if it would get a vote.

In the GOP-controlled House, Republicans had no plans to act on guns and Democrats were unable to force any action, given House rules less favorable to the minority party than in the Senate.

The Massachusetts House of Representatives has been subpoenaed as part of an investigation of state Senator Brian Joyce.

The House’s chief legal counsel, James C. Kennedy,confirmed to the Boston Globe that the legislative body has “received a grand jury subpoena from the United States Attorney’s Office requesting certain records relating to an ongoing investigation of a member of the Senate. The House of Representatives is cooperating fully with the United States Attorney’s Office.”

No members of the House have been subpoenaed and no members are targeted in the investigation. The state Senate received a subpoena in May.

Joyce, a Democrat from Milton, has been the subject of allegations that he used his position to benefit himself and his law office. In February, Joyce’s Canton law office was raided as part of an ongoing federal investigation.

Shortly after the raid, Joyce announced that he would not see re-election.

Previously, Joyce paid $5,000 under an agreement made public by the state Office of Campaign and Political Finance for using campaign funds to pay for his son’s graduation party. He was also questioned about free drying cleaning he received from a business in his district.

Last year, he stepped down from his leadership position as the assistant majority leader after meeting with state insurance regulators on behalf of a private client.

In May, the WRTC Award Committee reviewed the essay entries submitted by graduating high school seniors entitled “What Freedom Means To Me”. This annual scholastic award is presented to the writer of the most outstanding essay which best illustrates the concepts and values of freedom that drive the American system. The WTRC is proud to announce this year’s Freedom Award winner: Mr. Owen Orford, a senior at Westford Academy.

Owen’s essay was a clear reflection of his life values and his dedication to them. In his community service he has helped in home rebuilding for the displaced and has been a mentor at WA for students needing additional support as they transition into the WA system. Owen has been a member of the National Honor Society since the 10th grade and won the Academic Achievement Award during his 11th and 12th grade years. He reached a milestone last year when he qualified to become an Eagle Scout. He is planning to attend the University of Massachusetts Lowell in the fall.

The WRTC was honored to present Owen with the Freedom Award at the Seniors Awards night June 2nd. We wish Owen the best in his future studies and career.